Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

smooth wombat writes "Before the advent of iTunes and MP3s, EMI and Pink Floyd entered into a contract which stated that EMI could not unbundle individual songs from their original album settings. This was insisted upon by the members of Pink Floyd, who wanted to retain artistic control of their works, which they considered 'seamless' pieces of music. However, with the advent of digital downloads, EMI has been selling individual songs through its online store. Pink Floyd sued, claiming EMI was violating the contract, whereas EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums, not Internet sales. Judge Andrew Morritt backed the band, saying the contract protected 'the artistic integrity of the albums.' Judge Morritt also ruled EMI is 'not entitled to exploit recordings by online distribution or by any other means other than the complete original album without Pink Floyd's consent.'"

If you don't buy yer "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 2" you can't have yer "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 1!" How can you buy "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 2" if you don't buy yer "Another Brick in the Wall: Part 1?!?"

I think people who say stuff like this are revealing more about their own taste in music than they realize. At 27, I can honestly say that there's been a wealth of great music released throughout my life, even if it isn't on heavy rotation on radio and cable music networks. And I can think of very few one hit wonders I'd include in that.

College radio stations. I've listened to more new music since I started listening (5 years ago) to the local community college radio station than in the previous 43 years of my life. I mostly listen in my car but they do stream online as well at http://www.897theriver.com/ [897theriver.com]

The only college radio station in Fort Wayne, Indiana, is WBCL, the Bible college radio station.

The bigger question is: "What in the hell are you doing in Fort Wayne, Indiana?"

If I remember correctly, there are buses leaving that town every single day. It's a great American tradition that people who are interested in experiencing all that the world offers leave towns like Fort Wayne just as soon as they're old enough to walk and make their way to places that are not bound by religious fundamentalism and small-town small-mindedness.

I'd like to say I'm not trying to single Fort Wayne out, but the fact is that I'm quite familiar with Fort Wayne and the Bible Belt that it's got on so tight that it's cutting off the circulation to the brain.

I don't understand. You're sitting at a computer right now. There's plenty of ways to find stuff, free and legal, you just need to look around.

But I will echo a couple of the answers you've already gotten: small act live shows and college radio. I can't emphasize small acts enough. You're not likely to find anything but the heavy rotation artists at the big stadium and theatre shows.

When it comes down to it, it's mostly a question of how interested you are in finding good music.

Their time is devoted to other things than following the latest fad (and many acts are that). So he has found a way for someone else to do a bit of sifting for him.

We used to get our ideas from our friends of what music to listen to. They in turn got it from their friends and so on. But eventually that 'fad loop' closes. The key changers move away or just stop doing whatever it was they did to 'find new music'. Or perhaps you realize the dude with all the cool music is a bit unstable and not what you want to be around anymore...

So radio is a perfectly valid way to find new music. Then go searching for other things to build on.

The problem is however, I can go searching on the internet for all sorts of music. But where do I start? Google? I know what genres of music I like but how would I find *NEW* music if I do not even know what to search for? I do not even know they exist much less what sort of music they have. Last.fm and pandora are interesting but limited in their scope of introducing new music.

You will see this too when you get older. I didnt believe it myself when my parents told me it would happen. It does to many of us.

That's ridiculous. Everyone knows that music is created solely in the tightly controlled laboratories deep within record label strongholds. Instrument players are merely stealing music by way of arranging reproductions of notes and chord progressions developed by, and the exclusive property of, the music industry. These people must be stopped before their counterfeit performances devalue music by making it accessible.

No, the point they were making was "too bad we don't have newer bands around today, that can make a whole albums worth of music worth listening to". My answer is that we do have them, in fact a wealth of them. In a later comment I added that most artists don't write filler but that one can expect, given the subjective nature of art, to only like a subset of what's out there, even from talented artists.

I think my broader point was that my experience has been that the perception of artists not producing whole albums worth listening to comes from hearing only heavy rotation music and not really sitting down to take in the breadth of an artist's repertoire. It might sound snobby, but appreciating art is an interactive process and rarely will someone really find much joy in art if they're not willing to invest attention in it.

I think the real story here is not that Pink Floyd is suing, nor that EMI offered the songs as individual tracks, but that there are people stupid enough to buy Pink Floyd in any unit other than an album or complete works set.

I don't remember, how much money does a band get per (legally) downloaded audio track?

If they want their art to be bundled and only sold that way, and EMI agreed to it, good for them. But at the same time, (assuming they care, they may not) they could also be limiting themselves on the amount of money they could be making.

There is no downside to this ruling. Admittedly, people who would like to download only parts of Pink Floyd albums will be disappointed, but from a stand point of what is good for society this is a good ruling. Of course, if copyright didn't extend longer than it should, this ruling would be irrelevant since Pink Floyd's music would be in the public domain by now (or within a couple of years anyway).

There is a down side to this ruling. Many who want songs and not full albums at the price offered will revert to piracy. This will hurt the bottom line of EMI and Pink Floyd, weather or not they care, they will be compensated for their efforts.

That's a possible downside of their decision, not of the ruling itself. It's good for musicians to rule that their contracts covering physical record sales also give them the same rights for digital sales.

It appears that EMI plans to continue selling single Pink Floyd tracks, effectively ignoring the ruling. Apparently, the judge merely said that what they were doing was against their contract, he did not explicitly tell EMI to stop doing it or that EMI would face any penalty for continuing.

From the BBC article:

An EMI statement said: "Today's judgment does not require EMI to cease making Pink Floyd's catalogue available as single track downloads, and EMI continues to sell Pink Floyd's music digitally and in other formats."

While I applaud the decision, it does kinda bum me out. This album was released over 30 years ago. Under the original 1790 copy right laws, this album would have just entered public domain. Thanks to Sony Bono the album wont hit public domain until the earliest of 2084.

EMI disagreed but a judge has sided with Pink Floyd. The ruling is part of a long-running battle between the two sides over £10m in unpaid royalties.

I also am a huge fan of Pink Floyd but I believe your altruistic views of Floyd are a bit misplaced. I dare say this may be a deeper battle with greed also playing a part and 'art' being used as a facade. If they were concerned about their art, from day one they would have denied radio stations the ability to play their work on the radio without the ent

Maybe it's greed or maybe it's revenge. The only way to hurt EMI is through their bank account. If someone makes me go to all the trouble and expense of hiring a law firm I'm damn sure going to hurt them as bad as I can.

You know you can show up on someone's doorstep and bitch for years, threaten to sue, get laughed at. Then sue. It's quite likely Pink Floyd sent their lawyer over to cry breech of contract, for months. "Please stop doing this."... oh, you don't want to listen? Hold on, let me get the big stick.

Because you're not allowed to sue for the right to beat the loveless everliving shit out of your opponent. (God only knows how often I'd be in court if that were allowed!)

It's a contract. The label's alleged acts in bad faith constitute a breach of contract, which is an instrument of monetary consideration. That's the scorecard. That's the stick. Cease-and-desist is temporary. Termination of contract is the nuclear option. What's left?

For all you know, PF might donate all their damages to charity, or hire the very best contract assassins to finish the job that the courts could only start, or burn the entire windfall in a huge bonfire in EMI's parking lot.

No, I'm not a lawyer. Yes, I know the customary abbreviation. No, I don't care.

You think that's a win? It just means more Pink Floyd songs will be downloaded on file sharing services rather than purchased legitimately. When all that is left is illegitimate means you can guarantee that's the route people will take. This time, it's the artists I have no sympathy for. That's a switch.

Maybe they don't even mind if people share their music (having "already made their money"), which would be admirable, but it's still a disservice to their fans to not give them a legitimate avenue other than "buy a CD" (which for me personally would amount to maybe 20% to 30% of a Pink Floyd album that I actually like.)

but it's still a disservice to their fans to not give them a legitimate avenue other than "buy a CD" (which for me personally would amount to maybe 20% to 30% of a Pink Floyd album that I actually like.

For Pink Floyd this is about artistic integrity, not profit. They've already made their money. For EMI it's all about profit, and that's why Pink Floyd put that provision in the contract.

This is a win for Pink Floyd, and a loss for labels who think they can do whatever they want.

Oh please. Pink Floyd has every right to do this, but they're being either very weird or just plain hypocritical. For all of the talk of artistic integrity, and about how the songs are a seamless whole, they have no problem with the individual songs being played as singles on radio stations to sell the albums, do they?

I think this has more to do with "make people buy the whole album" than it does with any artistic vision.

I don't remember, how much money does a band get per (legally) downloaded audio track?

If they want their art to be bundled and only sold that way, and EMI agreed to it, good for them. But at the same time, (assuming they care, they may not) they could also be limiting themselves on the amount of money they could be making.

As I said, I doubt they care, but it's interesting to me.

Well, the result included an undisclosed settlement of royalties paid to Pink Floyd by EMI based on past sales. So it could be as serious as the difference album versus fractional purchase of everyone who bought only fractions of Pink Floyd albums.

If it's in the contract, it's in the contract. I question why Pink Floyd bothered to divide them into tracks or to name them different names if they truly were 'seamless.' I understand that the Pt. 1, Pt. 2, Pt. 3, etc of songs like "Shine on You Crazy Dia

Chillin' out with my boombox in my lounge chair in my lawn with a tall cool drink listening to Alan Parsons Project or Yes.... I wouldn't even feel the need to yell at you to get off, you young kids...

Or they approached EMI first, then eventually went to court, then it was there for a couple of years, and now it's done. The article doesn't mention when they first complained. They say the contract is from a decade ago, which sounds about a quarter-century short of Dark Side, and certainly post-Waters.

I question why Pink Floyd bothered to divide them into tracks or to name them different names if they truly were 'seamless.'

I can tell that you don't listen to any classical music. It's about the composition as a whole, which is comprised of smaller pieces or movements. Floyd is (well, was) doing the same thing, except via modern instrumentation.

And at the same time, I have never heard classical recording artists complain that their labels are making individual movements available to their listeners. Heck, they're happy that they *have* listeners. Ecstatic, really, in this day and age. And I don't see composers whining about it, either. Lord knows, if somebody wants to do part of a piece I wrote, if it is divided into movements, more power to them. If I wanted it performed as a single work, I wouldn't have divided it up into chunks.

I believe its because Pink Floyd is not worried about their wealth but rather the distribution of their art. The concept is crazy, I know, but there are people out there who do things for other reasons than greed in today's modern world, despite what EMI will have you believe

I think Pink Floyd isn't worried about money any more. This is about art, and obviously art is more important than money for them. This keeps them from having lots of lame boxed sets made, or songs downloaded out of context so the artistic point gets blunted.

This is about art, and obviously art is more important than money for them.

Of course. They already HAVE the money.

It's easy to look like something is more important than money when you already have all the money you want.

I'm not saying your statement is true or false. I'm saying that this lawsuit does not necessarily prove that. Now, if they started giving all their money to charities... in other words, getting RID of their money... then I'd be more inclined to believe it. As it is, they're not losing anything, except possibly future sales. But we all know that isn't a loss,

Albums like Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here are made as single things. It was the glory days of the concept album. The best track is like the best square inch of a good painting, and they don't want to be judged on that. Good on 'em.

What I want to know is whether this means that EMI reckons we can freely copy EMI songs from that period because their copyrights applied to the physical album only, so a digital copy from vinyl is OK for free distribution.

These guys ain't the poor artists that the RIAA likes you to believe exists (and works very hard at trying to create by not actually paying royalties they collect to artists). So i doubt they give a shit. Really, they don't have to go dumpster diving anytime soon.

If copyright lengths were sane the whole thing would be moot; Dark Side of the Moon is thirty five years old. This journal [slashdot.org] infringes Pink Floyd's copyright, but it shouldn't. It would stand without the copyright violation (which may be fair use, I don't know) but it wouldn't be nearly as good (or would be even worse, depending on your opinion of it) without it.

Let's hope they get permanently blocked by their ISP (and others) for three strikes.

It'd be unfortunate for it to have to come to that, but it would be an ultimately good thing if such advocates for ever stringent copyright laws got a taste of their own medicine. In a way, that's what is happening here. Pink Floyd is only able to exert this control (and have a judge back them up) because of the strict nature of copyright law, including over songs that are significantly older than many folks participating in this discussion. It seems that EMI and others who lobby for more copyright restrictions have gotten what they wanted. It's viscerally satisfying to see that what they want and try so hard to get more of is not always how they imagined it to be.

I am a fan of Pink Floyd - some of their music can easily be removed and sold individually. Comfortably Numb, Money, Time, Learning to Fly, etc, can all be enjoyed individually with little to no "loss" in atmosphere.

This is how it is played on radio, this is how people have been introduced to it. But once you start listening to the CDs as a whole, you'll never want to go back to one-off radio play. Seeing Roger Waters play Dark Side of the Moon was amazing - and you have to agree with Pink Floyd, something

Yeah, I don't think this sort of thing bothers me. I think it will probably hurt their sales in some ways, but whatever.... as long as they sell it DRM-free and don't try to negotiate weird/strict licensing deals and stuff like that.

I know we like to live in a black and white world where every action is either evil or terrific based purely on the action itself, but the motivations really do matter. I think it sucks when a record label picks out the couple of songs that you really want on an album and say

I'd take that one step further, I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy "Continue on to next track" feature for random play. I love having my iPod on shuffle, except when playing things that segue like Dark Side of The Moon or Abbey Road or Frank Zappa's Apostrophe. When a tune like "Brain Damage" comes on, it would be nice to have an one-push feature that will continue to "Eclipse", as opposed to Floydus Interruptus.

Yes, those are different. They agreed to release those as singles. Doesn't change the fact that their contract with EMI says that EMI can not sell their albums as anything but the full album without PF's consent.

Well there is a big difference between individual songs played on the radio as opposed to individual songs bought on iTunes. Yes, the radio plays their songs stand alone, but if I liked the song "Money" and I wanted to hear it again I have to go buy "Dark Side of the Moon" where I will be exposed to all of the songs on the album. Now if they were sold as singles on iTunes, well all I would ever hear was "Money". I would never be exposed to any of the much better songs on the original album.

Dude, I get massive amounts of mod points here all the time, and I'm a fuckin' idiot. What's your point?

Real idiots don't know that they are idiots and they generally proceed to make decisions as though they were infallible. Then when something goes wrong, it's always someone else's fault or due to "luck" and circumstance but is certainly never attributed to their own poor decision-making. The humble gesture you just made strongly implies that you're not such an idiot, if I may say so.

...this is about a record label subverting a contract. EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks, Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums and doesn't want to jeopardize that. EMI is probably right, Pink Floyd possibly so. The courts only come in due to the fact that they can actually afford to sue their label over EMI's failure to live up to its contract.

...this is about a record label subverting a contract. EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks, Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums

Pink Floyd doesn't feel there's more money in album sales. They feel that they didn't make individual pieces, they made a whole, and they feel that it should only be sold as a whole.

They feel that they didn't make individual pieces, they made a whole, and they feel that it should only be sold as a whole.

Pink Floyd can say whatever they want and they've made their millions so they can do whatever they want in the name of "artistic integrity" but I think that argument is nonsense. If it was a single work then why did they make individual tracks? Fact is the songs on their albums are discrete works which can be listened to independently. Their albums are rarely listened to in their entirety - a fact I'm sure they are well aware of.

They can sell their works however they want and I'm fine with that but I don

Pleased to make your acquaintance. I haven't seen anyone listen to the album end to end since I was in college - 15 years ago. Tracks from that particular album are played on the radio as standalone pieces all the time.

Heck, the Wall makes no friggin' sense at all if you just pull out...

Only if you actually are following the whole story which is more effort than I've seen most people put into their listening. The *music* is just fine even if you pay no attention to the lyrics. Run Like Hell, Comfortably Numb, Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 are all just fine as standalo

...this is about a record label subverting a contract. EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks, Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums and doesn't want to jeopardize that. EMI is probably right, Pink Floyd possibly so. The courts only come in due to the fact that they can actually afford to sue their label over EMI's failure to live up to its contract.

I have not audited their finances, of course, but I seriously doubt that Pink Floyd is hurting for money. I imagine they are enjoying a large degree of financial security. Additionally, this is music that has had an enduring appeal for decades now and is not some one-hit wonder or trendy pop music that gets their 15 minutes of fame, milks that for all the money they can get, and fades into obscurity. For these reasons, I'm more inclined to believe that this is truly an artistic concern over how they want

This doesn't prevent Pink Floyd from making a separate deal to sell individual songs. To me it's more about smacking down EMI for trying to bypass contract verbiage and I applaud that. It's nice to see that a judge thinks an artist's vision of their work actually counts for something.

That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this, because they are standing up to the evil record label.

Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels (and/or artists? information wants to be free? evil copyright?) should not be allowed to have such tight control over how things are sold.

So here's a record label making it EASIER to get tracks and we're upset about it, because PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums. I guess that's their artistic license... but aren't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music? I've heard plenty of arguments how that shouldn't be allowed, it's not fair, etc., unless you're talking about physical media. And PF is now suing over distribution of non-physical media...

So yes: in my opinion, EMI is breaking a contract. Bad.

And in my opinion/guess, Slashdot is going to generally be contradicting themselves, upholding a "non-freedom" position (PF's) because it happens to be against what the record label wants.

If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole, then make it one track. Or make it movements, like symphonies... etc. For that matter, think of all the symphonies that are sold by movement. Separately...:)

Fortunately Slashdot consists of many minds and some of them don't view this is a contradiction at all. That is: PF has the right to control distribution however it wants to -- moreover, EMI supported that as well, in the contract they signed. Beyond that: information has no desires and can't want to be free, but artists (and even labels) are within their rights to want to get paid.

But most symphonies are sold with individual tracks (and thus able to be bought individually).

And most people, even classical music listening people, only really recognize certain movements of symphonies or any multi-movement work, unless it's REALLY well-known.

Some composers actually started doing traditionally multi-movement works as one large piece with no breaks inbetween. Example: Liszt's piano sonata in b minor. Reason? He didn't wan the work split up. Same reason PF gives for their album. But Li

I never realized how intercoupled the songs on Pink Floyd albums were until I happened to listen to the songs on my mp3 device while set to 'random song'. It was jumping all over my music collection, and all the Pink Floyd songs were either jarring to come into or ended abruptly. I can see why they didn't want them split up. They really are parts of a whole with a few exceptions.

But c'mon, what balls on EMI. Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact, EMI tried to weasel out by saying they weren't selling records. But then I remember this is one of the labels behind the RIAA extortion scheme, so I shouldn't be surprised.

In general, I agree -- most Floyd songs don't work when pried out of their context, though there are exceptions. And certainly, EMI deserved the spanking that they, for once, got.

That said, every time I hear someone talk about "artistic integrity", I reach for my revolver. It's one of those bullshit art industry marketing terms like "authenticity" that doesn't actually mean anything. My experience of a work of art is internal to me. Sometimes I give a shit about what the artist was thinking, and sometimes I

I have to disagree with you about artistic integrity, it's definitely something that should be respected.

I do however agree that it gets thrown around a bit too much in situations where it's not applicable, for me it's mostly a matter of allowing the artist to have a say in how his/her artwork is presented to the viewer/listener. How you choose to listen to Dark side of the moon shouldn't be up to the artist but how the album is being sold should definitely be something that Pink floyd should have a say in

Plenty of musicians have made their fortunes and still have no artistic integrity. Credit where credit is due, and for a while now that's meant acknowledging when a musician has any artistic integrity at all.

Ever since the advent of the long-playing record as the popular music medium, many artists have been making music that flows for 20 to 45 minutes, not just music that lasts for 3 or 4 minutes. Sure, singles still got made, but most real artists thought in terms of albums, not songs. The CD reinforced that model, allowing artists to flow their music for even longer. Even on albums that appear to be mostly singles, a lot of thought went into how they were arranged on the record.

The advent of itunes killed this. And it's a shame. Young music marketers don't even think beyond 5 minutes of music. Would Thick as a Brick, Tommy, Sgt. Pepper, The Who Sell Out, Brain Salad Surgery, 2112, Ziggy Stardust or any of the Pink Floyd or any number of classic albums even be able to be made in this new "single" only model?

"What it did really is make the business a one trick pony -- and everything became about the three minutes, the single, the hit single," entertainment attorney Michael Guido tells FRONTLINE. "I think the album died with MTV. The culture in the record companies in the last 20 years has been to reward artists for three minutes of music, not for 40 minutes of music."

The music industry because obsessed with promoting the single only. Albums then became about getting one or two hit singles packaged with a dozen other songs. The music industry shifted focus to selling a song rather than selling the artist.

iTunes was only about selling what the Apple thought their customers wanted. There wasn't a very easy way to get music online at all whether a consumer wanted a single or an entire album. If Apple could provide this store/service they would have an advantage over other players. I'd say Apple was correct in that assumption. They didn't drive this demise; they merely used it to their advantage.

This isn't an issue of profit versus art, or even single track versus album, the issue here is that EMI had a god damned contract with the artist that specifically said NOT to do something...which they then did. And then excused it with the thin excuse that "it didn't count" because it only applied to physical albums...which then by their own argument meant they had NO contract rights to electronic distribution.

Any ruling OTHER than overwhelmingly in favor of Pink Floyd would have set a precedent that would basically invalidate all artists rights and let the studios run roughshod over everyone.

So rather than say "yay, Pink Floyd won!", we should be saying "what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?".

Exactly. EMI was basically saying all contracts and copyrights made in the vinyl and CD days no longer applied. Which would mean any song recorded without specifically mentioning digital rights in the contract are now free to anyone as digital media.

The judge also ruled on a second issue, the level of royalties paid to the band. That section of the judgment was made in private after EMI argued the information was covered by commercial confidentiality.

I suspect the real issue here was EMI paying a lower royalty fee for online salve vs a contract set rate for album sales.

Winning in this case puts Puck Floyd in the driver seat when it comes to negotiating a new online sales contract with EMI.

...if you're stupid enough to part with good money just for the pleasure of having your hard disk heads move in such a way so as to create some crappy, lossy music files on your PC, then you're probably too stupid to appreciate their music...

Sorry, kiddies, but you need to face some facts - the vast majority of modern music is about elevating talentless people into the limelight as quickly as possible so they're too shell-shocked to demand too much in royalties; this maximises record company profits & means they're also cheap to dump when they start getting too greedy.

This in turn implies that due to a lack of musical ability, they're incapable of producing music albums that have more than one or two good tracks on them, thus explaining why the modern "great unwashed" now want to treat music like "Pick N Mix" sweeties and just choose the tracks they like (which also happen to be the only ones that are any good).

So speaking as the complete and utter music snob that I am, let me sit here and do nothing else but enjoy my nice hi-fidelity, old-fashioned Pink Floyd music CDs from start to finish on my nice expensive hi-fi system whilst you children go off & run around at the gym whilst listening to your "ever so modern" formulaic plastic music...

Well, did you enter into a contract with Pink Floyd which states that you would listen to their albums in no manner other than an uninterrupted performance from start to finish?
Otherwise, no, and it is puzzling why you would think otherwise.